Posted on 02/28/2003 9:34:51 AM PST by HumanaeVitae
BARBARA WALTERS: Mrs. Bush, you are pro life?
LAURA BUSH: I’m pro life.
Actually, I'd guess your conjecture to be false. Many people have accepted punishment, even when applied to themselves, as something that is good and right. Who reading this has not said at some point if even to themselves, "I deserved that" in reference to a punsihment they received?
However, let me clarify what I mean a bit. I would couch your example more like this. Given: Murder is wrong -- already established by me. New question, prior to any murders being committed: Should murderers be punished? Nobody is in immediate danger of being punished and therefore has no vested interest in voting themselves out of an unpleasantness. How would people vote? There may be a miniscule few that would try to argue the person could be rehabilitated without punishment, but the vast majority would answer yes.
Going further, take the matter of dancing. Some think it is wrong others not. If you asked them if dancers should be punished, I'd guess you'd not get any sort of universal agreement.
This is undeniably incorrect. In the Sudan, slavery abounds so there are some who don't see it as universally as you think.
By universalities, I meant an agreement on something as wrong, not that it doesn't exist. Further, the universality is not on the question of whether a particular person would murder or enslave, there is no universal agreement on that. The agreement is on the question of whether they'd agree to be murdered or enslaved.
I agree, there are some who would reserve special privilege for themselves. They'd present strong arguments why they deserve better. If you didn't like it and they were stronger than you, I wouldn't be surprised if the resorted to force.
That is exactly what I am not talking about. I refer to the crappy end of that stick. The end where you are raped or enslaved or killed. That's where universal agreement lies. And because it does, those asserting otherwise are wrong. It is because the whole of everybody wants off the crappy end, including those arguing somebody should be there because they want them to be that makes it wrong. Those wanting to enslave other while refusing to be enslaved are hypocrites. Their arguments are null and void.
Your universal assertion that nobody wants to be a victim is confounded by the special interests in the democrat party.:-}
Thus proving there's a fly for every ointment. 8^)
The soul is the form of the body.In terms of Aristotle's four causes:
Body: material cause of a living organism.Soul: formal cause of a living organism.
Soul: efficient cause of a living organism. (All substances that exist by nature are self-moving; living things are natural substances; therefore, living things are self-moving. To accommodate for plants, self-movement is not limited in meaning to change of place (locomotion), but includes change of quality (alteration) and change of quantity (growth and decay) (De Anima, 415b23-28)).
Soul: final cause of a living organism. (The soul is that in whose interest everything is, or is done, in a living organism (Cf. Ibid., 415b20). For example, wisdom is excellence of reason; reason is a faculty of the soul; therefore, wisdom is excellence of soul.)
Actually, there are many situations that could arise that are better examples than you've given. A parent could volunteer to be murdered in place of a child. These are the periphery. Parents, martyrs, hopelessly ill all have ulterior motives. I'm talking simple murder, no special "72 virgins" reward as motive. Nothing, you're just dead. Mentally ill don't count, they don't have the proper capacity for decision making.
The question of when life begins is a scientific one that is well settled. It begins at conception. jwalsh07
The sperm was alive before it got to the egg, which was also already alive. Therefore... 26 posted by biblewonk
What jwalsh07 posted to you is absolutely accurate and you knew the context in which it was offered, that the conceptus is an individual human life begun at conception, not the haploid gametes or sex cells. Your sneaky effort to equate the sex cell (only 23 chromosomes) with the conceptus (46 chromosomes and a self-directing entity seeking survival in its environment, as opposed to the sex cell which is not seeking survival) is atleast disingenuous and at most a nihilist's way to discredit the individuality of the newly conceived individual human being that is the conceptus. So, what was your intent with that twisting, mischaracterization of jwalsh07's post?
Once you start extending this "stick" to other parts of life you will find some interesting problems. The crappy end of the stick to a divorcee means that no one should get divorced. The crappy end of the stick to a game of poker means no one should gamble.
Besides getting into the question that some people would welcome being murdered, this crappy end of the stick application isn't even universal as applied to slavery.
There are countless stories about American slaves who did not wish to be set free. The famous Exodus story is full of examples of folks who didn't want freedom and who desired to return to Egypt. If we count indentured servants we have numerous examples of folks who willingly entered into slavery.
You in essence have imposed your viewpoint as a universal truth on all people for all times.
Not everything. Just babykilling.
Because the exceptions fundamentally alter the issue. I ask _minion, "Would you agree to be murdered?" I undoubtedly get a "No." God whispers, "Tell laredo 'yes'". So you do. Not because you really wanted to be murdered, but because you in a position where you can no longer say no. You can't make a case, God knows everything.
So, yes, you can fundamentally change a case and get fringe exception. I already told you that. Withholding external enticements, my point stands.
So you admit your universal truth has some exceptions. Interesting definition of a universal truth.
I ask _minion, "Would you agree to be murdered?" I undoubtedly get a "No." God whispers, "Tell laredo 'yes'". So you do. Not because you really wanted to be murdered, but because you in a position where you can no longer say no. You can't make a case, God knows everything.
Two problems with this. One is yes, I may under certain circumstances agree that my murder is a desirable event. The other is that you desire to set a universal truth upon what you believe others believe. What gives you the right and/or knowledge to be able to make that determination ?
So, yes, you can fundamentally change a case and get fringe exception. I already told you that. Withholding external enticements, my point stands.
So, your point stands and if anything contradicts it its a fringe exception by definition. Me thinks you might have some circular reasoning going on here but I'm quite sure you won't notice it because your too invested in it. Which in itself is an interesting comment on your universal truth.
You are making some strong points which I will try to address as best I can.
The reference you cite above reminds me of the movie The Truman Show. Did you see it? Jim Carrey portrays an individual who has lived his entire life, unbeknownst to him, on a TV stage where he is the star attraction of a show. Over the course of the film, Jim becomes increasingly suspicious, finally making a break for what he believes may be freedom. After sailing into the edge of the set, Jim opens the door to the ourside world. Just as he is about to leave, the director intervenes verbally and tries to convince Jim to say. "It's all you know, Jim. The outside might be really bad compared to what you have here." Stuff like that. I think everybody in the theater was yelling to themselves, "Get the heck out of there!" I certainly was. Later, as I reflected on the movie, I wondered if, in real life, I had been given the same option, what would I have done? I'd like to think I'd have acted just like Carrey, but would I? He had a wife. What if hed'd had a baby? Would I have left that for complete uncertainty?
So, yes, I see your points. My answer is that those slaves weren't prepared to make the choice. Their answers were not unbiased. They were slanted by years of experience. I read of long term convicts who preferred to be in prison. Just saw a documentary where a bunch of murders broke out of prison, true story, and in the end, one guy just turned himself back in to the police. just couldn't take it on the outside. Many reasons, hounded by police looking for him, no food, no sleep, etc.
I don't accept those exception as valid responses to the situation I've posed. you may think I'm weasling out. We may agree to disagree at some point.
I read of long term convicts who preferred to be in prison."BROOKS WAS HERE" (Shawshank Redemption 1994)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.